me and who i was, i had c completely, i had given myself so completely over to it. and once again i listened to my father's words, and i realized he was right, i really could do anything my pretty little head desired. [laughter] >> thank you. that was the perfect way -- [applause] to conclude our session. and i want to thank both d. connie mare -- mariano and gloria feldt. again, go to signing area one, tent b, and books will be available there for purchase. and thank you again for coming to the festival. as a friend of the festival, please, go to our web site, thank you. ..

>> now sarwar kashmeri argues that natives historic function seven largely taken over by the european union security alliance and says that if it is said to -- to survive it must take on a different role. about 55 minutes. >> i am just thrilled to be here

think the foreign policy association which has played such an important role in the development of what i do. i want to thank all the cadets who are here from was. west point is one of the most aspiring places that i have had privilege to go to. every time i go there i am in of of the careers of these young women and men. and so i simply cannot start without saying thank you for your service. [applause] nato, i believe, is an increasingly dysfunctional organization. and if it continues to go the way it is now it will become

rather inconsequential for the security of europe and the net estates. that is kind of the theme of my book. and i also believe, however, that nato is extremely important and that it has, in some way, to be redone. so let me reveal the mystery of this book, "nato 2.0: reboot or delete?." someone says, are you going to give away which one it is? will do that. it is rebuilt, not delete. i wrote this book for everyone. it is terribly important for young people to understand what nato was, is so that they can then play their part in supporting people who are trying to change it. interestingly, the name that i

chose, "nato 2.0: reboot or delete?", ran into some difficulty with the search engines on online bookstores. you know, when you go in and search for a book. if you like this book you like these other books. welcome all the books there were picking out were computer books, how you make your own computer, how you removed. so i think they have that fixed. nato is one of those institutions that was set up after the second world war to help keep the peace and to reconstruct a world that have seen total devastation. and it has existed as a very strong anchor of the european american alliance, the transatlantic alliance. it is my argument that it is now beginning to do, instead of

folding the sides together it is beginning to chip away at the relationship. that relationship, the transatlantic, the transatlantic relationship is still enormously, enormously important. we live in a time where china and brazil and india and so on, the galloping economies are going to be the biggest markets in the world. but i always liked to start off by telling the audiences that today, today the 800 million people of the united states and the european union produced almost two-thirds of the world's economic output. $14 trillion in sales are generated by these two economies they employ 4 million people, just as many americans work for european firms as europeans do for american firms. european investment contributes

10% of new york's gdp. one new yorker out of 20 has a job or her job because of the investment from the european union. so that, to me, is the ultimate prize, the ultimate prize also because these two regions are two of the very few in the world there really understand what the position of an individual is in society and in government. freedom, all of those other things that we take for granted are ingrained in the dna on both sides. and so i would submit to you been keeping their relationship strong is extremely important. that is where tomorrow when i started to think about nato and where it came from and where it is headed to my thought this is not working. we need to do something about this. it is the relationship which is starting to suffer.

as you know, nato was set up in 1949. it had a very clear purpose. the purpose was to stop the soviet union from invading europe. in fact, the best description i have ever heard of nato -- and some of you may have heard this -- was by its first secretary general who was asked by the reporter, what is nato for? and said nato is to keep the russians out, the germans down, and the americans and. in one sentence he encapsulated the entire purpose of what nato was. so common data goes through the cold war. we end the cold war without nato firing a shot. the soviet union collapses. then the question was what to do with nato.

in those times -- and by the way, for this book i talked to over 50 people on both sides of the atlantic. i talked to probably all of the key military leaders from the european union. a lot of the political and military folks here in the united states. that is the background of the research that i have been doing for this book. so, anyway, the soviet union collapses. we still have made no. the question was, what should we do with them? and in that time people just didn't think it through. what they wanted to do was make sure that all these newly free countries of central europe and eastern europe were all given some form of stability. the former security adviser makes a very wonderful point by saying you couldn't leave these countries in the middle with

russia on one side and the west on the other in limbo. they all wanted to join nato. and so we started observing those countries. nato went from a very tightly knit group of 13 to now 28 countries. well, during that time, by the way, the bureaucracy expanded to about 14,000 people. 300 committees, an equal number of subcommittees. so this has become a huge structure that comes through today. that is being whittled down, by the way, because one of the rules and nato is unanimity. making decisions with 300 committees, i don't know if anyone but the chairman can handle that kind of crowd. so we come to this stage where nato has expanded.

let me go through to 1999. nader makes the decision in washington that they will now go anywhere in the world to fight. that is the new purpose of nato. this so-called out of area purpose. and we go along. i want to short circuit this because i want to leave some time for questions. i want to bring you to september 11th. my book has probably the first description of what was taking place at nato headquarters. a first and accounts. here we are. the new treaty, the treaty that set up nato has a number of articles, a very short treat. article five is of very key instruments. it basically says, an attack on any member will be considered an attack on all. and it was a key article, if you

will, that connected america to the defense of europe. europe at that time was flat. flat on their backs. they did not have the money. they knew the russians came in. the only way to defend your was with america. and so that is what this article did. well, the very next day native got together and decided to invoke article five, which had never been invoked before. it said we will go to war with america. an attack on america, our leader, is an attack on all of us. huge, huge, huge statement on the part of all of the folks who were there. the story itself is interesting. you should buy the book just for that story. sorry. that is the last time. anyway, the united states

decides it is going to go fight alone. it turns around and sells all these allies who had stepped up to the plate and let article five, let's go to war. they said no. you know, this is a real war. take it easy. when we need for you to come we will call you. that was the first time and the european side the something was not right. something was not right. then let's move on to afghanistan. there came a time when it -- by the way, if you have not read about the account of what a few hundred special forces and armed cia people did in a few weeks in afghanistan after a sit-in for 11th, it is really worth reading. basically destroyed the camps, just a few hundred of them, including some wonderful cavalry horse charges.

it's quite a story. but, in 2003 in the united nations says we need to know start stabilizing afghanistan. native took over the afghanistan campaign. and there we find yet another fault line developing. vendettas of fall line whose so-called caveat. some european allies simply did not wish to make war. it wanted areas where there were no shootings. others didn't want to fight at night. some didn't want to fight unless they have helicopters and so on. there were all these roles. we started to see folks who wanted to send soldiers out into the field consulting checklists to see what soldiers you could send out and what you could not. so this starts to develop.

by the way, i'm very careful when i make this statement about caveat because i don't mean in any way to cut down on the bravery of the troops who were helping us, americans out there. the germans are not very willing to fight because of the very historical precedent. it is very difficult for germans to get over the second world war history. so i say these things just as matter-of-factly. please don't impede any other motive into that. so now you have these cabbie yachts. you have afghanistan where we were not prepared to use the allies because this was a different kind of war and technology had, in some ways, left them behind. we move now to 2007. starting to do something that the russians didn't like. before they knew it there was a cyber attack which basically flat and the government's.

no one knows whether that came from russia. there is a good reason it may have, but it is never been exclusively proven. within a matter of the day and a half, one of the most wired countries in the world. in the day and a half it ceased to work. international banks, post office, licensing groups and so on. estonia was a member of nato. seoul 911, nato headquarters, help. we are being destroyed. how? computers, cyber, don't work. back came the answer, oh, that doesn't work on article five. article five does not cover cyber defense. another fault line. and let me move along to 2008, russia does georgia. you may recall that there was a tiff between russia and the

country of georgia at that time. for some reason -- and i have never really understood it, the president of georgia decided that he should pick a war with russia, a much larger neighbor. russia attacked at full force, and before you knew it there were russians occupying a large part of the military establishment and so on. well, my hunch about that war is this, that georgia was being encouraged to join nato. russia had laid down a line in the sand. many of you probably know this, but ukraine and georgia are very different from the other central and eastern european countries. they have historically been an integral part of russia. in fact, you crane used to be the bread basket and used to, you know, until the mongrels came and then the russians ran into the forest. so they go back a long time.

the russians said, here, you will not come. and we wanted to get georgia or the administration wanted to get georgia into nato. the europeans subjected to that. and we basically said, all right. we give up, but make a statement saying you're almost as good as members. i am convinced to this day that that was enough for the present of georgia who, by the way, is a columbia graduate, practiced in new york with one of the most influential law firms, is well-connected into the political hierarchy. and so it is not the person who would just go off his rocker and go to war with russia. i think he went to war with russia because you really thought that the cavalry would come to his rescue. we didn't. so my point that i am building up to this, potlines and

afghanistan, fault lines and estonia, providing a kind of security that does not exist. i will just touched -- i had an interesting -- when i spoke last year at west point. at the end of the class q&a an american cadet, some european cadets, asked me why didn't nato give russia a tough time during the georgia campaign? was trying to figure out how to diplomatically answer this one and german to that said, may i answer? i said of course. he said, well, let me tell you. if you have done that you would be on your own because germany has terrific ties with russia, a growing business relationships, and you would have been on your own.

isn't that interesting. i'll give youerne like that. franceseted the sale of a warship, a helicopter attack were shipped to russia. russia invaded georgia. it took him 26 hours to go and occupy the new ports. that warship would have let them do it in 40 minutes. now, think about that. a strong member of nato disregarded the views and the sensibilities of the central and eastern europeans and making the sale. by the way, i'm not criticizing france. countries do what they do in their national interest. so there is this big divide between the western part of nato and the central and eastern europeans. just quickly on libya, which you may have some questions on later , you know, i keep thinking

that this whole libyan war was set up for the argument. i know that is not true. one of the biggest reasons for nato is standardization. we have always said ultimately nato, people can fight together, standards. well, reading last week that the nato allies were running out of laser-guided bombs. well, we have plenty of them. this big american carrier. guess what? they don't fit on british and french attack aircraft. i was stunned to learn that because i thought, if nothing else, we have been practicing. you know, doing all these things. i'm going to switch gears and go to you, but out tell you, this idea came from, the u.s. navy invited me a couple of years ago to watch carrier operations.

i was on board one of our atomic nuclear power carriers. that is somehow fit, how tell you. what they do on those carriers is just out of this world. i was having dinner. on one side of me -- this will be meaningful to the west point cadets, the executive officer pretty much runs his ship. on the other side was the commander of the fighter squadron. i asked -- probably 14 year or 12 year age difference between them. i asked the xl, i said, hey, what do you think about nato. by that time my wife had gone news to me at any dinner party. he gave me this whole picture about how we could never do without it. this is the anchor of western security. over dessert aston exactly the same question to the commander of the attack squadron. guess what he said, you will

have to prove to me what could this day the thing is. here i am sitting between two of the most senior american military officers, and that is the reaction i am getting from my side. at that is when i hit home that this -- may be this is an area with looking into. let me jump to 1919 -- 1998. the balkan war said just gotten over. war in europe's backyard that everyone thought were europe should take care of, but they didn't so we had to involve nato. the united states had to go when. france and britain decide that this is really shameful. we don't have any institutions to build defenses. we don't have any institutions to plan and run an operation. never again. so they met on the island.

they came off with an agreement. when the european union was set up there always was a security pillar. it had been put aside so that they could focus on trees that affected finance and capital market and movement of people and bringing the continent closer together. but they decided to fire up the security pillar. they set up -- nato is run, by the way, by a board of directors , the north atlantic council. military committee, and then you have various other committees, but those are the key structures that run nato. and so the europeans set up a military committee, military staff. they set up a satellite center in brussels. all the sudden focus woke up in washington and said, hey, what are these europeans doing? of the going to take away what nato is doing? there are to be duplication?

the u.s. with a uk set up some ground rules. no, this is all okay, but you can set up a permanent headquarters. and if you launch a campaign you need to use the deputy commander of nato as the person in charge of this. and they came to an agreement called the berlin plus agreement to work those things out. well, that only lasted for one campaign. after that over the last ten years the europeans have sent 27, 27 deployments from asia to africa under what they call the security and defense policy which is a policy as well as an establishment. now, i should hasten to tell you, most of this has been very small missions, 100 to 100 people. but they have gone all the way from asia to africa. two of them, which i want to touch on, are very key. how many people know that there

is a naval force, the european union naval force operating of somalia, anti piracy. it is twice the size of nato's. three years ago at the request of the united nations, the european union sent a brigade level force to chart for three dozen people. thousands of miles into the center of africa. i spent quite a bit of talking to the irish commander of that mission. there were tested with in the first week. there were polish, french, and swedish special forces that went in and opened up the air strips. the operational within 40 days. they fought pitched battles. there were deployed for 19 months, and then they turned it over. not the size of afghanistan, not thousands of miles away, but as

general nash told me, he said, you know, if we could do it for a brigade we can do it for three brigades. the eu has just approved the 28 commission, the 28 mission. guess where that mission is approved for? it is called eufor libya. one week ago they made the political decision in brussels to set up a battalion level, a thousand people, 1200 people, ready to go. a commander appointed, funded for three months and is waiting for the un to ask. they get that call, they put a battalion into libya. we have not covered that as much as we should. so, again, this was all part of the research that i was doing, and i was talking to people. one side really understood what was happening.

i said, one of my standard questions became to almost every general, look, you can handle the security of europe on their own now, right? and the answer would always be yes, if we had the political will, if we had the political will. and so i -- one of my editorials the couple of weeks ago is to the effect that libya it gives america the ideal opportunity to let europe get its political will. i think that this strategic security equation, trans-atlantic equation has really not been recalibrate sets the second world war. europe now is on its feet. i mean, there probably will never be a european army, but as we have seen in some of these

missions, there is a very strong army of europeans. i would submit that that is what it will probably be for quite awhile. during this whole canard about, you know, europe, they don't fight and negotiate and so on. talking with the general about my earlier book. he said don't let anybody fool you. when the interests are threatened to there is nobody that can fight as well as the europeans. and he said, well, we can't, the americans, but so coming now to where i want to end so we can answer some questions, i think the future of nato by itself, the shelf life is very small. i think the countries that are part of nato, you know, they don't really see eye to eye. also, i believe the europeans are quite interested in doing their own thing.

since a rock and a little while before that i simply don't believe that the united states and europe are totally in sync when it comes security. at think that whole equation has to be fought out again. and so i have just finished a report for the army war college. they have me speak about the book. they said, can you recommend what we ought to be doing? have just finished that report which will come out and a couple of months. my recommendation is that the president of the united states get in touch with the leaders of the european union and start a project to bridge nato to the european union. the europeans have not pulled bolting together, but they are moving in that direction. so that is my story, and i'm sticking to it. [laughter] and i am ready to engage on your command. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible] >> sorry? >> i can fill the questions. >> sorry. >> i will field the questions. if you can just raise your hand i will be happy to colony. yes. >> do i needed? is buried there kate. thank you very much. my name is nicolas march from. my question is, how does nato british without isolating turkey? >> i thought we had a rule of medical questions. for those of you not aware, there has been a tiff between turkey and cyprus over the island of cyprus. turkey is a member of nato but

not a member of the you. so there is always disagreement. the eu and nato simply cannot get together because of this tiff over a tiny island. so that's trillion dollar relationship is stymied because of this test, which is why i recommend that the approach from the president to the leaders of the european. i go even further saying that we basically make it clear that this is what was going to happen. nato is not going to be existing on its own and has to be braced. of europe and its periphery are the responsibility of the european union. we want to be involved. it should be a pillar of some kind, an american pillar within the european establishment. what that should be should be worked out. that is the way i handle it.

if you let it go it will never resolve. this bureaucratic fight is gone for 12 years. [inaudible] >> a cute. do we belong in libya in light of what you just said? should this be a european problem? >> i have believed all along that this should have been a european problem. and in the camp of those who do not agree that we should have gone then. by the same token, i don't believe we should just be handing it off and saying good luck. we are a part of the western security apparatus, part of the transatlantic relationship. we should be there in some supporting role, but i would have just let the european union handle it.

for those of you that don't know, the president has just approved, two hours ago, the deployment of arms transfers over libya. that is the latest news. the colonel and i were talking earlier about how easy it is to start things and how difficult it is to conclude them. and to me what is really tragic is that we have people. all of these wonderful people who will soon be in action. you know. so we have a military force that does what it is supposed to do efficiently, adapts to what is taking place on the ground. and i think we just need to be thinking a little more about the consequences, unintended consequences before we take actions of this sort.

sorry. there was a question here. >> i would like to know your idea to make relationship between european, western, america more realistic, let's say. is this part of the broad concept? more and more supposed to mind on business and not to be involved. on another hand we repeat many times the european can do their job. but taking into consideration the special relationship right now. for example, within france, italy and germany, russia. they don't act at all interested of western civilization. they act accordingly. right now. because of broken strikes.

some personal connection. so just local idea. global idea. >> i think that we have long fees to exist in the world. we can compartmentalize. i mean, i think today there is no option but to engage all around the world. we simply cannot -- no country can, the united states cannot. think about it. if you look at our defense budget, add it to the european union countries defense budget. almost a trillion dollars. how long has the fights god? they don't even have a defense budget. now he's running rings around us. so what is the meaning of this? i think one of the meetings is that we cannot do things on our own. your point is well taken. some matrix. we need to work together. yes. i totally agree with that.

tell you a funny story about the russian ambassador. nato is trying to get very close to russia. as you know. and so they have opened up an ambassadorship to nato from russia. and it's not a full ambassador. don't let them vote. but they can attend meetings. we were sitting and having coffee. dimitrius is named. well, ambassador, what do you think about this kind look, gentler nato? you guys are going to be close together. he leans over and says, if your grandmother grew whiskers would call her your grandfather? [laughter] well, and all russian saying a guess. >> high. >> the question. you compared nato and the you as

being effective. what do you think about the u.n. itself? you know, the united nations buried you're saying we need consensus, people on the periphery. does it work? >> you know, i happen to believe that the un largely works. first of all i think most people when they think about the united nations, think about the security council. you know, there are very large parts of the united nations. i mean, the children's fund, the development fund. the reason that we don't have pilots speaking in french and bangladeshi and ukrainian and so on is because there are all these rules. so there is a large part of the un that we don't pay attention

to. on the security council i think that is a very tough thing. people of try to reform that for a long time. i have a feeling is going to be longer rather than shorter before those improvements come in. having said that, i always believe that it is nice to have a place where everyone is considered an equal and you can sit and talk your talks may not lead anywhere, but at least to consider and talk. i would submit to all of you that if we didn't have the un we would have to invent it. so that is my view. maybe it is a little bit too blase, but that is how i feel. i think it is a hugely important organization i am glad it is in new york. geneva. sorry. please.

>> thank you. your first book doesn't push back in the united states because you seem to be undermining the traditional american british connection of encouraging a more european association. i presume you still believe that. how would this coordination that you described manage to rise above the royal wedding? [laughter] >> thank you. putting me on the spot yet again. i argued in my first book that we had not paid enough attention to the european union as it was being developed. we had simply not believe this could happen. we didn't pay enough attention. my argument was we did not pay enough attention because we look it europe. i believe we still do.

if it is not good for britain's until six months before the currency came into existence. i would go all around the country financial times and the euro and what integration would mean to american business, american foreign policy. people used to think of was crazy. the financial times. you mean you did more than two people to hear about this. so i theorized -- not to arrest, but believe the reason we did this because we look at europe during the often decline. i recall dean acheson, one of our best secretaries of state, who always said that we will be very close to burden. many, many lakes. we are almost cousins.

but he always said, be aware of exaggerating the special relationship. it will do them harm and it will do us harm. i am paraphrasing. so i still believe that. but i believe that the ground is shifting very rapidly. we have now britain and france or collaborating on nuclear weaponry, aircraft carriers. i mean to my wonder if the nelson statute is still standing. it is unbelievable what has happened in the last six months. and so i think that this whole thing will move pretty quickly. i think libya will be an ingredient in that. so, i still believe that. things a changing. i think mr. obama has a slightly different perspective on that issue. does that make sense? >> thanks you very much for your

comments. you mentioned -- and i look forward to reading the book. you mentioned that president obama should reach out to the european leaders to discuss bridging. my question is about the european leaders. lisbon was supposed to give us that long divided phone-number dekalb. been relatively quiet on libya and the number of other security issues. i wondered what your thoughts are. >> well, you know, i always ask my european friends. you have a number to call in america? you're sitting out there in europe. do you have a number to call? just one number to call? they don't. i think were the european union is right now is that a lot of the top hierarchy is settling in. i mean, for those of you who are not aware, the so-called lisbon treaty took the equivalent of

what will be the state department and what will be the defense department's handling them together to create one department. one person in charge. now, this is not all falling into place. you can see what the politics would be if we tried to take mr. gates and secretary bentsen and combine their departments, how long it would take to pull all this together. that is the direction in much things are moving. also, how many people know that the european union is the largest provider of aid in the world? so, winning hearts and minds, a state department, up defense departments, a development aid in one pocket. dino, naval force operating of somalia, because the european union is a governmental entity, unlike nato which is a military alliance, they can sign treaties with countries. so the eu has signed treaties

with africans countries. they take them in, turn them over to the court system. they have antiquated court system spirit of this development brings in consultants, bring in computers. they improve the legal systems, improve the computer systems. this is the kind of holistic defense structure that is being created. now, isn't that what our corn strategy is all about? hearts and minds, improve lives of people. the europeans are a couple of steps ahead. so, they haven't got it all together, but i think they need the political will. they need to know that we support them. sometimes i think -- and i would love to see if any of you disagree. the kind of balance. one way. all right. let's give them our leaders. then we kind of stand back. well, no, we have always led. what is going to happen if we let them, you know? does anyone believe that besides

me? the thank you very much. >> european union delegations. i appreciate very much your comments of. comparing nato and european union, seeing this huge stretch of nato with all the committees and military structures established. the european union's, it will only grow. at a think rebuilding was right. but without taking too much out of your book, how could you reboot there really? about. >> first of all, i'd think most people -- your where, in short. of the u.s. is aware. nato does not have the force. nato does not have a military.

it is not even have money to run a war like libya. he volunteered to fight you pay your own way. poland is helping us in afghanistan. there were 20500 troops. they pay a billion dollars a year to keep the force. that is attentive there defense budget. so the organization that is coming up does not have a military. nato does that have a military. what to the use? for the same tanks, planes. pull one off, put another on. off you go. now, it is true that what nato has in spades is this defense, if you will, organization. everyone is plug again. when there is a war everyone can react. how many are reacting? out of 28 members, six are participating, of which four or 31 nothing to do with attacking the ground.

the rebels are complaining that it takes a long time for native to come up. you know why? because when they call in the strike it goes to naples where the canadian general runs the joint force headquarters. from naples it goes to the strategic nato command outside brussels. from there it has to political committees to clear, the military committee in the north atlantic council. at times it has to get to the capitals of the countries to be approved. you know, recalled general clark used the climb a wall. you wanted to knock out television transmitters. it had to go through all these countries' capitals and come back. consensus. by that time i think those transmitter's stopped working. so, yes, it is true. i believe that nato is mired in this cold war structure. walking out of nato headquarters

with two senior officers at 5:00. there was nobody there. i said, where is everybody? well, it's 515. a war going on somewhere. so, yes, it is true. yes, it is true. i don't mean to denigrate what nato has done. it has been the most successful military alliance in history. but we now need to take a look at this. i mean, members can't agree politically. the disconnect between the political and the military's. so -- and i fully agree that the europeans are not all there and have a long way to go, but i think they are pointing in that direction and sent out some pretty heavy-duty missions. so why not move along that line? you know, i wind up in europe

trying to convince my friends that they should be a little more aggressive. please. we need you. yes. >> thank you for your remarks and for having us this evening. >> thank you for coming. >> i was wondering if you might describe a solution to the problem with server security because i think that is something that the american government would like to know. just per domestic security. [laughter] >> i am not certain that there is a solution. i am not certain that nato has found the solution. this is a cyber best practices center that has been set up in estonia. but my 35 people that work in it, which is a good start. but we have a four-star general that runs cyber command in the united states. billions of dollars of we are putting into it.

so this is a huge problem. i don't think we can solve it by ourselves, and they can solve it by themselves. i think we just need to keep plugging along year. i don't think there is any short-term answer to this. i don't know whether that answers your question, but i don't think there is a turnkey. we just have to go along. i mean, think about it. a 12 year-old from ukraine can get up and decide that they want to put in a denial of service attack on a computer somewhere. they can do it. thirteen years old, how many? so when the estonian attack, the quick question was what we take up the computers that we think it during this. low, one of the computers that have been identified. the this is a hugely difficult issue.

at think we just have to keep plugging away at it. >> time for one more question. >> thank you. in light of the global economic recession, particularly hard cuts in european countries, the british ministry of the friends, how would they be ted pursue an independent policy? libyan operations. >> that is an excellent question. the u.s. defense budget of 700 billion, round numbers. about $150 billion around members, iraq in afghanistan. the european union countries, their security budget is roughly 240 million euros. that is roughly about 380 million in round numbers.

now, take the words out. the united states has global responsibility. you take that budget out, whenever that is, and i don't know. i would submit that the budgets are not that dissimilar. the european union countries of 2 million people under arms. they are not trained like the american military, cannot be deployed and so on. 2 million. 10,000 battle tanks, 15,000 aircraft and 800 attack helicopters. so as well as britain and france, their nuclear powers. they have pretty potent nuclear punch. so that is kind of how i would answer it. and, i think there is even more reason for doing it now because the president has proposed, and i think we wind up somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 billion cut over the next decade. so wouldn't it be nice to get our partners in europe to share

that burden with us? we can do it if we run it all ourselves. let them develop. we need to give them a push. if i'm a alleges need to attend to one piece of business. i have been a member for a long time. i have spoken in this hall many times. i recall that i started all my speeches by looking at the first-round and connected with our vice chairman. i would always start my speech is by looking at her in beginning my speech. she was the most wonderful international minded person who was actually the first international relations class from georgetown. she died suddenly last year -- last year, last week. and, you know, i was just

totally, totally shocked, as were everyone. so brought us a long to read the fda is recognized for what it does. a nonpartisan academic environment. i would just be remiss in saying that we all miss you. i just wanted to say that. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> on behalf of everybody here i wanted thank you for this tremendous insights and causing gasol to reevaluate our assumptions, which is always a very healthy activity. i hope you accept this very modest token of our appreciation. it is from the department of social sciences. we in the early call ourselves soc. a coffee mug that he would happily use. [applause] [applause] but at this time i would like to

invite you up. we are holding a reception. the foreign policy association is holding a reception, but signing. i think we can all look forward to continuing the conversation of stairs. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> for more of permission about this book or others, sarwar kashmeri, visit the website. >> if you would walk down the streets of philadelphia, walk down the street to new york in the 1850's and ask somebody, what is the most pressing problem facing america at this time, there would have told you it is the sectarian conflict, the fact that the catholics of trying to take over and done and trying to take over america.

there was a rumor that the pope was going to come and establish headquarters in cincinnati. now, while cincinnati? i don't know. it seems that the pope would have better sense than that. nevertheless, this was the rumor. he was going to establish his headquarters at the jewish hospital in cincinnati. so, you get this connection. a conspiracy. americans love conspiracies. this was part of the conspiracy. so so far we have nothing about slavery. i mean, these guys are bent on destroying the roman catholic church. exterminating roman catholics. so, the german protestant immigrant came over. he was one of the great political cartoonists of the day in the 1850's, 1860's.

he gave the santa clause, the democratic donkey and the republican elephant. here he has a cartoon. of course, many people could not read in the days. they could, in fact, understand car tense. he has a cartoon which shows these are crocodiles coming ashore in the background it is not the white house but st. peter's cathedral. although you can't see it emily hall. tammy all, the democratic party organization of new york. a republican. the first major evangelicals party in america, founded in 1854. it brought together the entire catholic wing of the party with

the antislavery. the american patriots. it was a party newspaper. a man they are opposed to people aggression. they are opposed to foreigners holding office. they wanted to restrict immigration, but particularly respect the rights of roman catholics to vote and hold office. the offspring of these two strings, the antislavery string and the anti catholics during. the republican party, most of the people in the republican party did not care about slavery

where it already existed. they wanted to keep the territories white. they wanted to keep the slaves out of the territories. any place where slaves go, which cannot compete. the republican party bills itself as the white man's party. here we have abraham lincoln debating stephen douglas in that famous 1858 senatorial campaign. the republican party slogan that year was to vanquish the twin despotisms, catholicism and slavery. again, going hand-in-hand. i should tell you in full disclosure that abraham lincoln was not a religious figure. in fact, he hated religious bigotry. but he swallowed the republican part